Payola: Who Cares?
With the incumbent dropping out of the race, Elliot Spitzer's path to the Governor's Mansion looks pretty clear. Still, I must agree with Daniel Gross's assessment that his recent crusade against "payola" is remarkably pointless. The practice seems continuous with basically everything done in the marketing game -- vaguely sleazy and disreputable, but not something that should be illegal.
What's more, just in case it somehow were possible to level the playing field and ensure that the best music became the most popular music, the consequences could be catastrophic. Cool bands wouldn't be cool if they were on the radio all the time, so the cool kids would need to listen to someone else. But without the corporate marketing juggernaut ensuring that the airtime goes to crappy songs, indie kids would need to listen to bad music in order to stay on the cutting edge. Something of a dystopian vision, I think.
In all seriousness, the clear problem here is that analog radio broadcasts are an obviously obsolete medium. Since the anti-payola laws don't apply to digital broadcasts (satellite radio, internet feeds, those weird "music choice" channels I get from my cable company, podcasts, etc., etc., etc.) this is all irrelevant.
Comments (15)
We'll always have our screams of "sellout," Matt. They'll never take that away from us.
July 28, 2005 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's easy for rich, ipod-owning yuppies like ourselves to underestimate the cultural importance of radio, but it exists. It's a very democratic medium explicitly regulated to ensure that it benefits the public, yet station operators are allowed to essentially commit a fraud by accepting pay for play. Authenticity *is* valued by consumers -- perhaps stations should be allowed to offer it or not as they see fit, but they should also be required to disclose this practice, the same way that food have to be labelled -- e.g. "this song is being featured thanks to a $10,000 fee paid by BMG". There are other things we could do with that spectrum that would be more useful than making money for station managers and record companies.
Re: your other, non-serious point -- hipster cognitive dissonance would just be something we'd have to have to learn to live with. Our parents got by fine with having the music they loved played on the radio all the time; I doubt a return to that state would really destroy the coolness economy.
July 28, 2005 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, when I read this, all I could think about was the Congressional game-show scandal investigations back in the '50s. I mean, really, this is what our law enforcers are worrying about? I admire Spitzer, and I think his taking on corporate fraud that the SEC was unwilling to bother with was both truly inspired politically and the right thing to do (a rare exacta in politics). But this payola investigation... Oh well, it brought in $10 million to the state, I guess. That'll be a good start on the Second Avenue Subway. (HA!Right.)
July 28, 2005 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also: let's not forget Clear Channel's pro-Iraq War rallies. Not only does this company make its living in a nasty and deeply dishonest way, it's a political opponent. I think the payola issue on its merits is worth doing something about; the political angle means the payoff is that much bigger.
July 28, 2005 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
July 28, 2005 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
The New York State Attorney General is not like the Federal Attorney General. It is largely a consumer projection office. Spitzer was able to take existing tools especially the Martin Act to enforce rules the SEC was ignorning. Payola may not be the great issue of our time but if it is illegal why shouldn't the rules be enforced?
July 28, 2005 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
This isn't about music, about getting better music on the air, or getting music on the air that cool kids will like. It is about unfair competition, big conglomerates like Sony out-muscleing less powerful distributors and labels to sell their product. So it might be irrelevant, in effect, to music geeks (such as myself) in that it is doubtful that cool music will start sweeping the airwaves. FM listeners are genetically predisposed to listen to crap and will continue to demand that FM stations feed them their crap of choice. But, come on, any check to unfair competition is an overall good thing.
July 28, 2005 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Payola may not be the great issue of our time but if it is illegal why shouldn't the rules be enforced?
Because enforcement resources are always limited. Choices always have to be made as to what you will prosecute and what you'll let go. No one ever likes to talk about deliberately allowing some crime to go unpunished -- steeped as we have come to be in a victims-rights milieu where prosecutors are supposed to fight for Justice For Every Victim -- but that's the cold hard reality of it.
Mind you, assuming it's really criminal (and I'm not suggesting it's not, I just don't know what law it violates), then I'm not saying the payola practitioners have been gone after unfairly. It's not their rights I'm concerned with. I'm just suggesting that maybe this wasn't the best use of Spitzer's time or that of the AG's staff.
July 28, 2005 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
And before I get asked, "Like what"? There was a series the past week or so in the Times -- somewhat hysterical and unhelpful in a way -- about the woeful underenforcement of Medicaid fraud in New York. I think maybe that's a little bigger issue than payola.
July 28, 2005 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The law against payola is as effective as campaign finance reform. There is too much money and power at stake to stop it. If you stop it one way, money and power will find another route. Stop the spinners whether it's disc or policy from taking cold cash and special privileges and opportunities are made available. Can't take money, need a favor?
The only possible solution with which I can come up is to some how make it as transparent as possible. That way we know at least from where the influence is coming. But as I opened, money and power would still find a backdoor that no one can see.
I like listening to the radio and can only conclude there must be a lot of payola in large amounts to account for what I'm hearing. I draw the same conclusion when I see my elected officials in action.
July 28, 2005 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course it's serious, it's illegal. Some band and labels profit from payola and other bands and labels suffer. And just because it is the modus operandi of the music industry doesn't make it right, just like the file sharers on p2p networks are in the wrong. It doesn't matter which way the technology is headed, right now the industry is still driven by radio airplay.
Is it grandstanding by Spitzer? Probably, but if he is made aware that the payola laws are being violated he does have a responsibility to investigate.
July 28, 2005 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, you're getting at what's bothering me. I am suspect of the quality of his political judgment. I agree that that is not so important as a prosecutor for consumers (I am not going to scream and yell that he's going after payola, it's neither here nor there for me as a priority of expenditure, and maybe it's important as to other issues that I haven't boned up on, like intellectual property.) But my point is: political judgment, big picture thinking, nuance, it is important as a governor. I don't want a black/white legal zealot as governor, nor do I want one that picks out populist issues to exploit. I haven't been convinced that he's not dangerous in this way. Of course, we will be seeing how righteous he plays in in campaign speeches and debates et. al. I am just speculating.
Oh, just a funny thing on the image thing I recall now--I happened to catch him surfing the TV on Jim Cramer's goofy CNBC money show, only a few days ago, he made a special long appearance and Cramer had a live audience to interact with him. They did not sit, it was all standing like a town hall meeting, and he was pretty stiff with the zany game show tactics the show uses, you could see he was uncomfortable. He did laugh once in a while though. But it almost seemed to clear to me that he was "practicing up" on doing this kind pol thing. He was a bit stiff but it was unclear whether that was him being uncomfortable at Cramer's zaniness or him trying hard to appear a humble man of the people.
July 28, 2005 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, laws have to be enforced and all that, but, I've never really seen an explanation as to why payola is illegal in the first place. I can understand why it might be an employee-employer issue (ie, employees with the job title of DJ breaking their employer's rules by accepting cash from the record companies). But why does the government care either way? If anything, one would think the record companies would have a perfectly legitmate justification for payola. They're merely trying to sell recordings. What exactly is unacceptable about these marketing expenditures?
July 28, 2005 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's illegal and for a good reason. Payola harms competition, creates barriers to entry, keeps the small guys out of the market, and does this all in a corrupting, non-transparent way.
The next time you complain about how crappy FM radio is, remember your approval of payola.
July 28, 2005 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I know this thread is way old now, in blogtime. But there were 2 op-eds in the Times this morning (July 29) about the whole payola thing. I have to say the one by Jacob Slichter of Semisonic made me more appreciative of the effect of payola on musicians trying to get their works heard. So while I still am not sure this is a great use of the NY AG's office, I shouldn't have been quite so dismissive of it as a problem.
July 29, 2005 6:02 AM | Reply | Permalink